I didn’t want to hijack the 85” viewing distance thread where this chart was posted. I don’t understand what it is trying to convey. Why is the optimal distance for a 32” 480p set further away than an 85” 8k tv? Is it saying that you have to sit further away from a lower resolution TV so you don’t notice the individual pixels? So, for an 85” 8k tv, you shouldn’t sit closer than 5ft? Is the chart only focused on resolution? Because sitting 18ft away from an old and small CRT tv seems counterintuitive. I must be reading this chart wrong.

I'm about as confused as you are. Yes, I think you're correct in thinking that it has to do with pixel density, as the higher the resolution, the more pixels per inch (PPI). That being said, I use a 43" 4K UHD TV as my computer monitor and I sit less than 2' from the screen. Even at that distance, I still can't see any pixels. As for old CRT TVs, I can certainly remember that as they got larger and larger, it was much easier to see the pixels, when you sat at the same distance as you did when you were watching a smaller TV. But at 16' or 18' viewing distance, seems a bit extreme? Especially since they were a lot smaller than modern-day flat screen TVs. I'm sure others will be able to give you some advice as well. Good luck.

 

So for an 85” 8k tv, you shouldn’t sit closer than 5ft? Is the chart only focused on resolution? Because sitting 11ft away from an old and small CRT tv seems counterintuitive. I must be reading this chart wrong.

https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png

You are reading this wrong. It is saying that for an 85" 8K TV, you shouldn't sit FURTHER AWAY than 5 ft if you want to notice the difference in details between 8K vs 4K. Moreover, it is saying for an 85" TV 4K vs. 1080p, you shouldn't sit further away than 11 ft.

 

Apologies for being obtuse here. And I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m just not getting it. If I currently have a 4K 65” tv, the max viewing distance is around 8ft. If I change it to an 8k tv of the same size, then I should be sitting less than 4ft away? Isn’t one of the reasons for getting a larger tv being able to see things from further away? The text on the larger tv should be more legible from the same distance as a smaller set of the same resolution.

 

The chart is designed to show when a higher resolution is "worth it" as it says. If you are sitting 15 ft from a 4k display then you are not getting much benefit over a 1080p display at the same distance.

But the main criteria for selecting a viewing distance is Viewing Angle and there are other charts for that.

 

IMO this is a better calculation of what to although an older tool it’s useful.

Viewing Distance Calculator

Viewing Distance Calculator

myhometheater.homestead.com

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

For your 4K 65" TV, the chart is saying that if you sit further back than 8.5 feet, a 1080p TV will look just as good. And if you plan on sitting closer than 4 feet, upgrading to an 8K TV would be worth it.

The chart says nothing about where you should sit.

What it does show is that past a certain point, things other than resolution are more important to picture quality.

 

This is why I argue that the HDR is more noticeable for most people rather than the pixel count. Just to state it again; this chart shows how close to the tv you must sit in order to actually be able to perceive that it has more pixels. This chart says that if you are 20ft from a 480p screen, a 720p screen, a 1080p screen, and a 4k screen, they will all look the same so you should save your money and stay with your 480p. once you get just under 20 feet then the 720 will look noticeably better, around 11 feet the 1080 will look better than the others, and around 7 feet the 4k will start to look better than the others.

 

Yeah tell that to people like me who got conned into non hdr TVs , some places even sold my model as hdr ready.
I’d rather watch the hdr clown show fizzle out like 3D then spend more money.
Heck my parents are using their 1080p tv til it dies and they don’t care about 4k. It’s got lines forming on the screen, once they realized cable looks like trash on 4k TVs from my tv why would they care about hdr .

8k makes even less sense..most content is 720p-1080i for cable , streaming goes up to 4k. Those 8k TVs are flagship there better not because of just resolution but because they are top tier models.

Sitting distance chart is interesting 🤔 how accurate is it?

 

Ok I think I get it now. If a scene has tiny details in the background like the titles of books or tiny figurines on a shelf, if I sit past the distance on the chart for an 8K tv, then it wouldn’t be worth it to upgrade from my existing 4K tv.

 

I agree with all of your arguments about sitting distance for 8K TVs, I have one. But as I said on the other thread, there is one major drawback when sitting that close to an 8K TV, and it has nothing to do with image quality, it's to do with the fact that many, if not most 8K LED/LCD TVs are extremely bright. My panel is rated at 4,000+ nits brightness. I'd like to meet anyone who could, without wearing very dark glasses, sit that close for a few hours and tell me that their eyes are perfectly fine. Even at 8' sitting distance, where I sit, sometimes the image can be totally overpowering. Good luck.

 

The brightness wars has gone to the extreme too. I see the benefits of having peak brightness to be able to display an HDR picture but being blinded by a nearly white screen is annoying. I believe it was the Foundation series beginning that would present an all white screen at the end of the opening credits that would blind us every time.

 

The smaller the screen the smaller the physical size of the pixel, resolution matters less when the screen is small because its more difficult for you to see the individual pixels and as you get further away from that screen it becomes even more difficult it is to see them. for instance a 1080p 15in laptop screen would have a pixel density of 146 Pixels Per Inch (PPI), while a 65in 4k TV would have a PPI of 67, So the laptop screen would have a perceived higher resolution at the same distance as the 65in TV because it's much harder to see the individual pixels on the laptop screen because of its size. This is why 8K really doesn't matter unless you use a 65in TV as a computer monitor that's 4ft from your face or if you have a huge screen 150in+ that your relatively close to say 10ft, it doesn't matter much.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that resolution doesn't equal a higher quality picture, at some point like around 16k the pixels will be so small that you won't be able to see them even on a massive movie theater sized screen. This is why the industry started moving towards things like HDR the only way they could improve the picture quality in away that people would notice is a brighter screen with a higher color volume, increasing resolution has become a pointless endeavor and is the reason why 8k really hasn't taken hold as the next standard even when companies like Samsung push hard for it.

 

If 4k is only worth it for HDR ? Why did so many brands sell non HDR models ?
I gotta upgrade TVs just to see what HDR looks like. I’d imagine lot of people just use a 4k tv to upconvert stuff and don’t bother with actual native content.

This chart is totally useless for anything beyond a static image, and a place to start. It does not take into account motion and processing quality. There is zero chance a 4K 65 tv is not worth it over a 1080p tv at 12 feet if you are comparing an insignia 1080p vs a Sony 4K oled.

i wish this chart would disappear. It was far more useful back when we had crt sd Tvs only. Today it’s just not the same.

that chart is super confusing yes.
Can you still buy a 1080p tv I’d imagine there better for cable which is heavily compressed looks bad on 4k TVs .

 

The chart is useful as the indication at which viewing distance detail of additional resolution might get lost, but is not precise math as that really depends on other factors such as our vision, content master, as well as bit-rate/compression of the content. So I would not worry to much about that. People get 8K sets because they are flagship models despite the fact that there will be quite a while before any real 8K content becomes available. If comparable performance can be achieved by 4K set, really no reason to go for 8K.

Viewing distance is more a function of setup limitations, personal preference and audio considerations. As I noted in the other 75"-85" thread, if using LCR (and hopefully many more) speakers, you can't really sit 4-5 feet from the screen as your soundstage will suffer.

 

It just shows you how close you have to sit in order to notice the extra resolution. People think I'm crazy when I say I sit 4 feet from a 65" 4k screen, but as you can see, it's right at the close side of where I need to be. If I sit farther, the extra resolution isn't "worth it" because I literally can't see it, even with 20/20 vision. The farther you go, the less you can see. The closer you go, the more pixels or aliasing you see. It's just showing you the "sweet spots" so to speak.

I sit at 4ft when I game in my chair, and closer to 15 feet when I lay in bed. The only things worth watching in bed are movies/shows. Movies/shows or any other recorded media are compressed to 4:2:0 chroma, which means the color resolution of a movie is 1/4 the luma resolution. So a 4k movie is acceptable to watch at 15 feet because its color resolution is only 1080p. If I sit at 4ft and watch a movie, it looks blurry compared to a full 4:4:4 game at the same distance. If I tried to game at 15 feet, I would be at a large disadvantage competitively because I couldn't see what's going on, read certain text or see small details, etc.

The 32" 480p example you gave is correct. You have to sit farther in order for the picture to be sharp. If you sit closer you see pixels and/or blurriness depending on what media it is. It's why the biggest factor you should be considering when choosing a TV is where you sit, and what you are watching on it. Once you've nailed that question, then you pick the size and resolution accordingly.

Viewing distance is more a function of setup limitations, personal preference and audio considerations. As I noted in the other 75"-85" thread, if using LCR (and hopefully many more) speakers, you can't really sit 4-5 feet from the screen as your soundstage will suffer.

Haha yeah I do sit 4-5 feet but my LCR are so close together that the soundstage is actually better at 4-5ft than it is at 15 feet. It's basically one big center channel at 15 feet. And my surrounds are tuned for 4-5ft so when I sit 15 feet they're way too loud, but it's too much hassle trying to change the volume every time I change seats.

For me, eye fatigue from a too much required movement would set in on the hi res sets at closest distances. For me, close enough for immersion is what I'd like to achieve and that's it. For me optimum distance for a 60" set would be about 6.5 feet. I personally wouldn't enjoy sitting any closer to a TV than 1.2 X diagonal (screen size) and there's no way I'd enjoy sitting 4" away from a 65 inch 4k screen, LOL, but we're all different. That said, the 1.2 is pretty close to optimal for me but I'd rather be further than closer from that point.

I think the whole eye strain from sitting too close is completely myth from people who never even tried it. I do it all the time, hours and hours at a time with no issues at all. The only strain I get is neck strain from holding my head up while reclined. Eyes perfectly ok. The entire screen is 100% in my field of vision, don't have to move my head to see the sides or top/bottom of the screen at all.

Depends what you're watching though. I couldn't enjoy a movie at 4ft, but gaming at 4ft is perfectly fine. I thought I would regret the upgrade from 50" to 55", and then again from 55" to 65", but no, no regrets at all. I would go even bigger and just scoot my chair back a couple more feet, but 65" is the biggest that will fit.

 

I think the confusion comes from the title of the chart. It should be: Optimal resolution for a given TV size and the distance you sit from it.

 

This chart is totally useless for anything beyond a static image, and a place to start. It does not take into account motion and processing quality. There is zero chance a 4K 65 tv is not worth it over a 1080p tv at 12 feet if you are comparing an insignia 1080p vs a Sony 4K oled.

i wish this chart would disappear. It was far more useful back when we had crt sd Tvs only. Today it’s just not the same.

 

??? Obviously the chart came after CRT TV's as there was no 4K/8K back then.

Yes, motion processing, etc makes a difference.. that's not what the chart is referencing.

People may have their own opinions, but the chart is at least a general reference people can look at when considering TV's. Haven't seen a better one out there.

It's not a mandate of where people have to sit.

 

I just follow the easy old method, height of the TV times 2 and that should be your optimal distance. No need for fancy charts

 

hmm I never heard that before, so 55” tv 110” away? Interesting..
Yeah I get eye strain watching a 40” tv 10 feet away but cable is trash, no box so it’s unwatchable on my non hdr tv . I Thank the greedy tv companies for selling non hdr models .. best off wait til something better comes Out: spectrum cable will never be hdr.

 

Maybe this calculator makes more sense? Viewing Distance Calculator

 

Chart is strictly about resolution vs distance due to pixel size recognition. For me, eye fatigue from a too much required movement would set in on the hi res sets at closest distances. For me, close enough for immersion is what I'd like to achieve and that's it. For me optimum distance for a 60" set would be about 6.5 feet. I personally wouldn't enjoy sitting any closer to a TV than 1.2 X diagonal (screen size) and there's no way I'd enjoy sitting 4" away from a 65 inch 4k screen, LOL, but we're all different. That said, the 1.2 is pretty close to optimal for me but I'd rather be further than closer from that point.

 

The best chart for FOV:

Note this is for 2.39:1.

I'm happy at around 1.0W, personally

 

An experiment to understand what this chart is saying is

1. Take two solid color pieces of clothes.
2. One that's a knit texture, one that's smooth. (ex. a polo style shirt and a cotton undershirt t-shirt)
3. Tape them on a wall.
4. Slowly walk backwards

At some point you will stop being able to see the texture in the one fabric - they will both look smooth

This is what happens with resolution. At a certain distance a low rez image is indistinguishable from a high res image.

That doesn't mean they are equal....far from it. It's just one piece of information

That also doesn't mean you should only wear undershirts. There are many reason to not go around in your underwear besides the fact that people cant tell a difference in texture from far away.

 

Depends how low rez your talking, my threads on the Sony tv looking bad on cable and spectrum app would disagree that a low rez image is good even at a far distance 10 foot+
4k+ just is garbage if the source sucks ..worse then dvd even for motion/basketball . 👾
Unless you or someone here knows how to fix this ?

Sony 4K TV Disappointing for cable, 4k TVs are overrated

55X810C Got this tv 6 years ago or so . was fine for streaming Netflix, but I tried to run cable on it the first time and it cannot upconvert it too look good . Why are these the mainly sold tv today if they look so awful on anything not 4k? Blu-ray’s sometimes looked good but many titles were...

www.avsforum.com

 

That original chart is calculated with 20/20 vision I think, but a substantial amount of people have better than 20/20, so they can benefit much farther.

20/20 is not perfect vision, it's more like average vision.

As for me, I like 1 screen width away.

 

I use this tool to do the installations: TV distance / resolution